Princeton University and Yale University both saw their percentages of Asian American freshman dip this fall despite the Supreme Court eliminating <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affirmative action</a> in college admissions last year.
At Princeton, the percentage of Asian American freshmen dropped two percentage points from 26% last year to 24% this year.
At Yale, the decline was bigger at six percentage points, from 30% last year to 24% this year.
At both Ive Leagues, the share of black freshmen remained the same &#8212; 9% at Princeton and 14% at Yale.
Last year in June, the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action in college admissions, declaring race-based admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Students for Fair Admissions, the group that sued over affirmative action, had pointed to the high test scores of Asian American and white applicants who were rejected.
The high court&#8217;s decision has had a profound effect on the admissions processes at universities across the country.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724211156439000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2-L2DitSaIUj5wz8v0bgxx">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (MIT) the percentage of black students plummeted in the wake of the court&#8217;s decision. The incoming freshman class this fall is only 5% black, down from an average of 13% in recent years, MIT <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mits-share-of-black-students-plummets-after-affirmative-action-struck-down" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> last month.
Amherst College, a historic liberal arts in Massachusetts, also <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-04/yale-university-sees-drop-in-share-of-asian-american-freshmen?utm_source=twitter&amp;cmpid=socialflow-twitter-businessweek&amp;utm_content=businessweek&amp;utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&amp;utm_medium=social" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that its percentage of black freshman students fell to 9% from 19% this year. Hispanic students also declined to 10% from 14% last year. Meanwhile, the percentage of white and Asian American students increased slightly.
At the same time, universities have scrambled to find other ways to diversify their student bodies.
Yale and Princeton both pointed to more students receiving financial aid. At Yale, more than 58% of students are now getting need-based financial aid.
“I am especially excited that the Class of 2028 includes the greatest representation of first-generation and low-income students on record, and that Yale College now enrolls more veterans than it has in many decades,” <a href="https://news.yale.edu/2024/09/04/new-undergraduates-begin-their-yale-college-journey" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Jeremiah Quinlan, Yale’s dean of undergraduate admissions and financial aid.
“At Princeton we make big bets on human talent from all sectors of society,” Princeton Provost Jennifer Rexford <a href="https://www.princeton.edu/news/2024/03/29/princeton-trustees-set-2024-25-budget-increasing-spending-undergraduate-financial#:~:text=Between%20fiscal%20years%202022%20and,numbers%20of%20students%20receiving%20support." target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
Some schools moved away from considering standardized test scores as the argument that standardized testing harms minority students picked up steam. One Ivy League, Columbia University, permanently scrapped its standardized test requirement.
Some schools are also <a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-admissions-1d37af28939a533551cff45fa577ceb0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">considering</a> requiring more essays for admissions to get a better idea of a student’s background, while others plan to recruit students from minority areas or admit more students transferring from community colleges.
A majority of Americans, 62%, oppose race-based college admissions, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/most-americans-think-college-admissions-should-not-consider-race-reutersipsos-2023-02-15/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to a Reuters poll last year.

Happy Asian woman in his graduation day.

Princeton, Yale See Smaller Share Of Asian American Freshmen Despite End Of Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action

Anti-Racism

Education

Princeton University

Race

Racism

Supreme Court

U.S.

Yale University

Minnesota, under Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, prioritized non-white residents for COVID-19 treatments during the pandemic.
In Minnesota, an “ethical framework” prioritized black 18-year-olds over elderly whites, even though the elderly were at a much higher risk of severe complications due to COVID, the Free Beacon <a href="https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/food-and-drug-administration-drives-racial-rationing-of-covid-drugs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> in January 2022.
The racial discrimination <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/multiple-states-prioritizing-covid-care-based-on-race-thanks-to-the-fda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stemmed from</a> the FDA’s guidance when authorizing monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals for emergency use. The FDA only authorized these treatments for “high risk” patients, and included race as a factor determining someone to be “high risk.”
As the Free Beacon noted in 2022:
<blockquote>The <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/149534/download" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FDA “fact sheet” for Sotrovimab</a>, the only monoclonal antibody effective against the Omicron variant, states that “race or ethnicity” can “place individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.” The <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/155050/download" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fact sheet for Paxlovid</a>, Pfizer’s new antiviral pill, uses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s definition of “high risk,” which states that “systemic health and social inequities” have put minorities “at increased risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19.”</blockquote>
Even though the guidance is nonbinding, several states used it to justify race-based triage to the detriment of those at a higher risk of dying from COVID-19.
Minnesota, for example, explicitly cited the FDA as the reason it prioritized lower-risk minorities over higher-risk white people.
“The FDA has acknowledged that in addition to certain underlying health conditions, race and ethnicity ‘may also place individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19,’” Minnesota’s racial triage plan states. “FDA’s acknowledgment means that race and ethnicity alone, apart from other underlying health conditions, may be considered in determining eligibility for [monoclonal antibodies].”
The FDA said race may be considered, but it never said race should be the priority when determining who should get treatment.
Unsurprisingly, even though men were approximately 50% more likely to die from COVID than women – according to <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/10/19/at-least-65000-more-men-than-women-have-died-from-covid-19-in-the-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">research</a> from the Brookings Institution – sex was not included as a risk factor in the FDA guidance.
As the Free Beacon noted, the triage in Minnesota gave non-white patients two points when determining risk, whereas comorbidities like “hypertension in a patient 55 years and older” were only worth one point.
The policy followed others in Minnesota, which are getting renewed attention after Vice President Kamala Harris chose Walz as her running mate. Another policy Walz implemented was a COVID hotline that allowed Minnesotans <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/flashback-walz-implemented-covid-hotline-to-snitch-on-neighbors" target="_blank" rel="noopener">to snitch on their neighbors</a> for violating lockdown orders.
The hotline generated thousands of reports – against people playing basketball, walking their dogs, or attending church, local outlet Alpha News <a href="https://alphanews.org/one-minnesota-thousands-reported-on-neighbors-using-tattle-tale-hotline-during-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> in 2022. Walz’s administration continued to monitor the hotline until November 2020, though it remained operational until June 2022.

Kamala Harris And Running Mate Tim Walz

Tim Walz’s Minnesota Prioritized COVID Care Based On Race

Tim Walz's Minnesota Prioritized COVID Care Based On Race

2024 Election

COVID-19

Elections

Minnesota

Politics

Tim Walz

MSNBC contributor Molly Jong-Fast claimed during a Tuesday appearance that vice presidential nominee JD Vance (R-OH) only wanted to see &#8220;white kids&#8221; in the United States — but she neglected to mention the fact that Vance is the father of three biracial children.
Jong-Fast joined MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire — who made no move to qualify her statement — in responding to Vance&#8217;s now-viral comments about Americans who were &#8220;childless&#8221; by choice.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
MSNBC claims JD Vance’s pro-family stance is &#8220;racist,&#8221; that he wants “more white children” in America—despite the fact that JD Vance is father to three biracial children.
<a href="https://t.co/K53uENGSDf">pic.twitter.com/K53uENGSDf</a>
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1818321813937500342?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 30, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The stats are there,&#8221; Lemire began. &#8220;More and more Americans are choosing not to have kids, which again emphasizes why JD Vance&#8217;s comments about childless Americans, &#8216;childless cat ladies,&#8217; could be so politically damaging.&#8221;
&#8220;Well, so what&#8217;s interesting is this is this naturalism that comes from an authoritarian playbook, right?&#8221; Jong-Fast asserted. &#8220;That there need to be more white children, right? That&#8217;s the idea, that there&#8217;s — you know — this is about great replacement theory racism, right? This is what this is, so don&#8217;t misunderstand it for him wanting more children. He wants a certain kind of, you know, racist thing.&#8221;
What neither Jong-Fast nor Lemire acknowledged was the fact that JD Vance and his wife Usha Vance — the American-born daughter of Indian immigrants — are parents to three biracial children.
&#8220;His children are biracial. This is gross,&#8221; conservative pundit Mary Katharine Ham posted in response.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
His children are biracial. This is gross. <a href="https://t.co/YCwvRw8V1q">https://t.co/YCwvRw8V1q</a>
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkhammer/status/1818318808525787157?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 30, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ellen Carmichael, a communications professional, added two points for consideration: &#8220;1. There should be more white children (and children of every color, because kids are awesome and our birth rate is plummeting). 2. Weird to advance a white supremacy theory by ::checks notes:: procreating non-white babies with an Indian American.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
1. There should be more white children (and children of every color, because kids are awesome and our birth rate is plummeting).
2. Weird to advance a white supremacy theory by ::checks notes:: procreating non-white babies with an Indian American. <a href="https://t.co/WDtiyqFzp7">https://t.co/WDtiyqFzp7</a>
— Ellen Carmichael (@ellencarmichael) <a href="https://twitter.com/ellencarmichael/status/1818316247244922912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 30, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;You know, the actual damning thing in this clip is not the nepobaby saying something stupid, but the supposedly objective @politico reporter who does not push back on the stupidity. More and more, it is clear much of the political press has picked a side,&#8221; conservative radio host Erick Erickson commented.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
You know, the actual damning thing in this clip is not the nepobaby saying something stupid, but the supposedly objective <a href="https://twitter.com/politico?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@politico</a> reporter who does not push back on the stupidity. More and more, it is clear much of the political press has picked a side. <a href="https://t.co/DVuqlqqDdX">https://t.co/DVuqlqqDdX</a>
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) <a href="https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1818314037567844514?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 30, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;VANCE’S KIDS ARE BIRACIAL, you demented, race-obsessed weirdos,&#8221; Fox News contributor Guy Benson posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
VANCE’S KIDS ARE BIRACIAL, you demented, race-obsessed weirdos <a href="https://t.co/2Ef2ZbnCf6">https://t.co/2Ef2ZbnCf6</a>
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) <a href="https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1818299048874410383?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 30, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Republican Senate Candidate JD Vance Attends Ohio State Fair

MSNBC Contributor Claims JD Vance — Who Has 3 Biracial Children — Only Wants White Kids In America

JD Vance

Media

MSNBC

African Americans are critical of the medical community&#8217;s efforts to embrace “gender neutral” terms that promote transgender ideology, according to a new poll.
The results from the poll, which was conducted by Ingram Market Research on behalf of <a href="https://donoharmmedicine.org/">Do No Harm</a>, comes as a growing number of doctors embrace new language to reflect the core tenets of left-wing gender theory.
The poll found that black adults were overwhelmingly critical of the term “birthing person,” which has recently been adopted by practitioners who believe men can become women, and thus have children. Nearly 93 percent of black adults said that they prefer the term “mother” to “birthing person.” Among women, 91 percent said that they prefer the term mother, while 94.9 percent of men agreed.
Do No Harm senior fellow Benita Cotton-Orr commented on the polling results, telling The Daily Wire that prioritizing competence is the “only way to restore the trust” in the medical field. 
&#8220;Our polling proves that the ideologues pushing nonsensical identity politics in medicine are out of touch with the very people they claim to speak for. Black Americans are rejecting the push to redefine race and gender in medicine in furtherance of a progressive political agenda,” Cotton-Orr explained. “The data proves that, like patients of all backgrounds, minority patients want doctors that are highly-qualified and don&#8217;t indulge in identity politics. Prioritizing medical excellence for patients&#8217; individual needs is the only way to restore the trust that has been eroded.&#8221;
A full 63.5 percent of respondents said that they would be “much less likely” or “somewhat less likely” to trust medical professionals who replace the word “mother” with “birthing person” or “people with uteruses.”
Black adults were widely opposed to the term “chestfeeding&#8221; as an alternative to “breastfeeding.” Black adults preferred the term “breastfeeding” by a margin of 93.6 percent to 6.4 percent.
The poll of 500 black adults found that medical professionals do themselves no favors among the demographic when they introduce themselves with their pronouns.
“Some medical professionals have started introducing themselves with their pronouns, such as ‘she/her,’ ‘they/them,’ or ‘ze/zir,’ and having their pronouns listed on their nametags,” the poll explains. “Would you be more or less comfortable having medical professionals as your health care providers if they introduced themselves with their pronouns?”
Nearly half of respondents, 48.2 percent, say that the practice would make them “much less” or “somewhat less” comfortable, while another 33.7 percent say it would have no effect. Only 18.1 percent say that they would be “much more” or “somewhat more” comfortable.
The poll also found that black adults care about medical professionals&#8217; skill more than their race. Just over 88 percent of respondents say that it is more important for a medical professional to be “highly competent.”

Rainbow Runway For Equality – Bangkok

EXCLUSIVE POLL: African Americans Widely Critical Of ‘Gender Neutral’ Terms In Medical Field

Doctors

Poll

Transgender

If you like your doctors and nurses to show a &#8220;sense of urgency&#8221; when caring for you and your loved ones, you might just be part of &#8220;white supremacy culture,&#8221; according to one prominent medical school.
Duke University School of Medicine <a href="https://medschool.duke.edu/news/school-launches-plan-dismantle-racism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released</a> a <a href="https://medschool.duke.edu/sites/default/files/2021-08/dismantling_racism_and_advancing_equity_diversity_and_inclusion_ADA.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">strategic plan</a> in recent years claiming that having a &#8220;sense of urgency&#8221; is part of &#8220;white supremacy culture&#8221; and suggesting that forcing this expectation on people of color is &#8220;discriminatory.&#8221;
<div class="page" title="Page 42">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
&#8220;In the workplace, white supremacy culture explicitly and implicitly privileges whiteness and discriminates against non-Western and non-white professionalism standards related to dress code, speech, work style, and timeliness,&#8221; the document reads.
&#8220;Some identifiable characteristics of this culture includes perfectionism, belief that there’s only one right way, power hoarding, individualism, sense of urgency and defensiveness,&#8221; the document adds.
The 2021 guide, which Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/duke-medical-school-claims-timeliness-individualism-part-white-supremacy-culture" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> on Tuesday, defines white supremacy culture as the &#8220;idea (ideology) that White people and the ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions of white people are superior to People of Color and their ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions.&#8221;
Titled &#8220;Dismantling Racism And Advancing Equity, Diversity And Inclusion in the School of Medicine,&#8221; the document says the goal of the plan is to &#8220;catalyze anti-racist practice through education of our current and future workforce.&#8221;
The dean of Duke Medical School, Dr. Mary Klotman, praised the plan at the time of its unveiling.
&#8220;This plan reflects the School of Medicine’s goals, priorities and strategies relative to the path we have been on, the path we are currently on, and the path forward,&#8221; Klotman wrote in a message accompanying the document.
&#8220;We are proud of our longstanding commitment to diversity and excellence and yet we acknowledge that there is much more work to do,&#8221; she said.
The document also included a definition of &#8220;white fragility,&#8221; which it says refers to &#8220;feelings of discomfort a white person experiences when they witness or engage in discussions around racial inequality and injustice.&#8221;
The idea that timeliness is a value of &#8220;white&#8221; culture has been around for at least the past several years.
&#8220;In a world driven by capitalism, professionalism &#8230; centers productivity over people, values time commitments, accomplishes tasks in a linear fashion, and often favors individuals who are white and Western,&#8221; <a href="https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_bias_of_professionalism_standards" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reads</a> a 2019 article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. &#8220;In contrast, polychronic cultures, while still able to get tasks completed, prioritize socialization and familial connections over economic labor.&#8221;
Other professional expectations that have been criticized as too &#8220;white&#8221; are <a href="https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_bias_of_professionalism_standards" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speaking</a> &#8220;white standard English&#8221; and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/sports/serena-williams-discrimination-black-women.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">keeping</a> anger in check at work.
Meanwhile, equity advocates <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/universities-scrap-sat-scramble-to-stay-diverse-ahead-of-affirmative-action-ruling">have</a> <a href="https://www.kevinmd.com/2019/09/its-time-to-abolish-the-mcat.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pushed</a> for medical schools to stop requiring the MCAT in recent years, alarming critics who worry that schools could end up graduating less qualified doctors, putting patients at risk.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Time is crucial for your health

If You Like Your Surgeons With A ‘Sense Of Urgency,’ That’s ‘White Supremacy Culture,’ This Medical School Says

If You Like Your Surgeons With A 'Sense Of Urgency,' That's 'White Supremacy Culture,' This Medical School Says

Critical Race Theory

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Duke University

Health Care

Medical

medical school

Robin DiAngelo

Several weeks ago, I saw a news article proclaiming that it’s been four years since the death of George Floyd — and my head snapped. It certainly doesn’t feel like it’s been four years. When George Floyd’s death on a Minneapolis street hit headlines in May 2020, I was busy graduating high school, sans Pomp and Circumstance, and trying to figure out what exactly the future would hold. We were headlong into the COVID-19 lockdowns, and my schedule was, to say the least, very open. The video of Floyd’s death, and the pure unadulterated social rage that followed, served as a catalyst that would change the country forever. Americans were looking for a reason to be mad — and they found one.
The race-obsessive revolution that followed happened in two ways: suddenly and gradually. In the months after Floyd’s death, American cities descended into madness, with looters and vandals doing $1–2 billion worth of damage in the most expensive riot damage tolls in the past half-century. But you can’t riot forever; in many ways, the gradual incursions of America’s race revolution in the institutional space have been even more pernicious and laid the groundwork for a far more complex wave of social racialization.
I’m referring, of course, to DEI: programs for diversity, equity, and inclusions that’ve commandeered billions of dollars from the university to the boardroom and re-ignited fierce debates about the place of race in public life. Shortly after the death of George Floyd, such initiatives were everywhere. You’d be hard pressed to find a company in the Fortune 1000 that wasn’t having to explore the best way to approach the issues of racial and cultural conflict in the workplace: exploration to the tune of <a href="https://fortune.com/2024/02/16/esg-dei-branding-problem-diversity-inclusion-debate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$340 billion</a>. Corporate America pledged more than the entire 2024 budget of the Department of Education to treat a disease that they weren’t sure they had.
Yet here we stand, four years later, and times have changed. As a corporate analyst, who’s watched almost a hundred annual meetings and listened to thousands of corporate proposals, I see how the market for diversity officers is <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/c-suite/chief-diversity-officer-cdo-business-corporations-e110a82f" target="_blank" rel="noopener">drying up</a>. Very few corporate proposals are seeking to form DEI commissions or move the goalposts on diversity — and an increasing number are actually asking companies to audit the legal and reputational risks that such programs have created. What happened? Did the corporate DEI movement simply get stamped out by greedy companies, happy to forego racial progress to make a buck? Or, does the movement itself bear some blame for grounding itself on the rocks?
I’ve interviewed both DEI critics and advocates, trying to find answers. I’ve listened to corporate activists, including at Walmart’s annual meeting last week, discussing how employees of color are still at risk and underprivileged in the workplace. I can sympathize with concerns about prejudice — and no doubt, sympathizing with concerns is how many corporate DEI initiatives began. Yet, the racializing solutions corporations have devised are quickly running up against reality. Just look at the case of Amazon, which recently had to deal with <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/05/31/dei-backlash-george-floyd-death-anniversary/73899737007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">multiple lawsuits</a> over its <a href="https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/transportation/two-years-of-empowering-entrepreneurs-with-more-to-come" target="_blank" rel="noopener">diversity grant program</a> (piloted in 2020) that excludes white and Asian entrepreneurs. As the pendulum swings back towards normal, ordinary Americans are waking up and realizing how divorced from reality corporate ‘anti-racist’ solutions are.
I’m reminded of a conversation I had in Grand Rapids last year with a DEI practitioner who said, “DEI isn’t generally seen as ‘company first.’ HR is there to look out for the company and mitigate risk. And DEI can create some risk there.” When pressed, she further noted her discomfort with the fact that “DEI consultants are buying into the corporate and capitalist game.” If DEI practitioners view corporate structures, including the pursuit of fiduciary duty, as a game to be played, and openly admit that their practices create corporate risk… that’s a bit of a poison pill for a corporate department/initiative tasked with providing positive returns to shareholders. DEI’s most ardent advocates and supporters might like to believe that diversity initiatives are part and parcel of increasing brand value. But shareholders don’t seem to agree—and as DEI’s potential to create corporate risk increases, so does the skittishness of the people who rely on brand performance for return.
Four years after the death of George Floyd, America’s rejection of race radicalism is underway, from the Supreme Court to prominent academic institutions (even the faculty of Harvard are <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/4/dei-faculty-hiring-stopped/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">doing away</a> with mandatory DEI statements). As economist Glenn Loury told me days after the Court’s overturn of affirmative action, “People said there was going to be a racial reckoning after George Floyd. The real reckoning on race is this.” America’s DEI advocates didn’t fall victim to a series of unfortunate events or any such helpless situation. They walked into the boardroom unseriously, and assumed that the radicalism and real risk that came along with them wouldn’t matter to corporate America. Billions of dollars later, it’s abundantly clear: it mattered.
The corporate DEI movement’s wounds are overwhelmingly self-inflicted, and its eventual demise will be as well. I only wish it hadn’t taken us four years and hundreds of billions of dollars to arrive at this conclusion.
* * *
Isaac Willour is a corporate analyst at Bowyer Research. He can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>, and is an award-winning journalist whose work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. He is a contributor with Young Voices.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Business people having meeting in conference room, sitting with laptops and discussing

The Fate Of The Racially Furious

Corporations

Employers

George Floyd

Readers Pass

A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/new-york" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a> school district is apologizing for the &#8220;exclusionary language&#8221; it used to promote an event for non-white students.
The Ithaca City School District advertised this year&#8217;s Students of Color Summit by saying the event was for &#8220;students of color in grades 6-12.&#8221;
However, the school district ultimately welcomed students of all races at the event, which was held on Friday at Ithaca High School.
&#8220;Please know that SOCU is open to all of our secondary students. We apologize for any previous communication that included exclusionary language about the event,&#8221; the Ithaca City school district&#8217;s communications staff <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-school-district-apologizes-exclusionary-language-promote-event-non-white-students" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in an email to students and staff.
The event was flagged a few days beforehand by the Equal Protection Project, a nonprofit that says it opposes racial discrimination in any form. The group sent a scathing <a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Letter-to-ICSD-re-SOCU-Summit-2024-5-28-2024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> to the school district&#8217;s superintendent and school board president.
&#8220;We are deeply troubled to learn of a program in the Ithaca City School District (ICSD) which appears to segregate students by race,&#8221; the letter read.
The group&#8217;s letter claimed an email was set by staffers saying the event was “for students of color to interact with each other&#8221; and that &#8220;allies&#8221; were not invited.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1716990157394000&amp;usg=AOvVaw33qQydjIo8bet419amChif">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;We understand in this context that the word &#8216;allies&#8217; refers to white students and staff. In fact, the message goes on to invite only non-white staff, stating: &#8216;If you are a staff member of color and would like to attend the summit with our students, please email,'&#8221; the letter states.
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The letter also said the school district has held Students of Color Summits in previous years that appeared to exclude white students.
The group accused the school district of violating the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination by schools receiving federal funds.
The Equal Protection Project requested that the school district &#8220;publicly denounce and renounce past and planned segregationist programs, and open up the upcoming SOCU Summit to all students and staff without regard to race.&#8221;
&#8220;At EqualProtect.org, we reject the claim that there is a &#8216;good&#8217; form of racism, or that the remedy for racism is more racism,&#8221; <a href="https://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/2024/06/03/watchdog-group-alleges-segregation-by-ithaca-city-school-district/73922113007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> William Jacobson, founder of the watchdog group.
&#8220;These principles are embodied in the law and ICSD policies. Why were such policies not followed? ICSD should be transparent and open about how this situation came about,&#8221; Jacobson said.
Superintendent Dr. Luvelle Brown also said the district would segregate students at the event and called the event a &#8220;safe space.&#8221;
“This is something that our young people have led and have developed because they want a safe space and they want other people to see what that space looks like, too,” Brown <a href="https://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/2024/06/03/watchdog-group-alleges-segregation-by-ithaca-city-school-district/73922113007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Tuesday in a video posted by the school district.
“I would hope that it would be every day we’d have this kind of event, but it does not happen every day because of the supremacy and the lack of people seeing (our) humanity, and some folks leading with ‘your schools are failing,'&#8221; Brown added.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Rear view of boy raising hand while answering in class at elementary school

NY School District Apologizes For ‘Exclusionary Language’ Around Event For Non-White Students

NY School District Apologizes For 'Exclusionary Language' Around Event For Non-White Students

New York

Public Schools

Author and Critical Race Theory critic Coleman Hughes told Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro more details of his viral exchange on race with leftist Sunny Hostin on ABC’s “The View” in March.
During the most recent episode of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/not-everything-is-about-race-coleman-hughes-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special</a>,” Hughes and The Daily Wire host discussed Hostin’s attempt to target Hughes in a “knockdown blow” after he was invited to join “The View” hosts to discuss his book, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Race-Politics-Arguments-Colorblind/dp/0593332458" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America</a>.” Hostin, who routinely slams conservatives and defends Democrats, accused Hughes of being a “charlatan” and “pawn” for those on the Right.
“Sunny Hostin declared that you were a charlatan and apparently a Republican operative, which seems kind of shocking since my understanding is that you have not voted Republican in any presidential election thus far,” Shapiro said. “Why don&#8217;t you take us through what actually that experience was like in person?”
Hughes, host of “Conversations with Coleman,” told Shapiro that he was excited for the opportunity to appear on “The View” and reach a different audience, but added that before he went on the show, a producer warned him that Hostin would go after him.
“So I was excited to go on. And one of their producers warned me that Sunny Hostin was going to come after me rather hard and I didn&#8217;t know who she was,” he said. “So I had no expectations. I just had, you know, the typical level of anxiety going into a major TV appearance. And what happened is that I had a pretty normal exchange with [Whoopi] Goldberg. We disagreed respectfully. But Sunny Hostin, you know, she claimed to have read my book twice, which was clearly not true, because she had no idea what was in the book, obviously.”
During the <a href="https://x.com/julesterpak/status/1773120245726634118?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1773120245726634118%7Ctwgr%5E800927b4a1bd3200e9983d6a13a38f2a8d90207e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fsunny-hostin-gets-wrecked-after-accusing-independent-author-of-being-co-opted-by-republicans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exchange</a> on “The View,” Hughes explained that his book points out that Martin Luther King Jr. argued for addressing socioeconomic inequality according to class, not race.
“As you are a student of Dr. King, I not only am a student of Dr. King; I know his daughter, Bernice,” Hostin replied, adding, “I think the [book’s] premise is fundamentally flawed.”
Hostin said that years after his “I Have a Dream” speech, King argued for “doing something special for the negro,” which Hostin claimed meant that he supported racial reparations.
“So your argument for color-blindness, I think, is something that the Right has co-opted and so many in the black community, if I’m being honest with you, because I want to be, believe that you are being used as a pawn by the Right and that you’re a charlatan of sorts,” she added.
Hughes quickly refuted her claim, however, saying that King’s comment on “doing something special for the negro” was in the context of King arguing for addressing socioeconomic inequalities through “a broad class-based policy.”
Hughes told Shapiro that Hostin had “an agenda to come after me from a particular angle that she didn&#8217;t realize wasn&#8217;t going to land.”
“She thought this was going to be some kind of knockdown blow to say that I&#8217;ve been co-opted by the Right as if there’s Koch brothers’ money being funneled into my bank account to get me to say what I&#8217;m saying.”
“Whereas the truth is that I just believe what I&#8217;m saying, and I&#8217;ve done a lot of research on this topic,” he said.
Hughes explained that he believes the exchange went viral because “so often on daytime television, on cable news, you see performative energy meeting performative energy.”
“It&#8217;s basically all theater,” he added. “And you rarely see someone come with a kind of performative canned attack, but the other person just responds and kind of calmly with facts. And that&#8217;s what I did there, and I think that was so jarring to people that the moment went viral.”

Ben Shapiro/Coleman Hughes

Coleman Hughes Tells Ben Shapiro Why His Tense Exchange With ‘The View’ Co-Host Sunny Hostin Went Viral

Ben Shapiro

Coleman Hughes

Sunday Special

Sunny Hostin

The Ben Shapiro Show

The View

Coleman Hughes, a Columbia University grad and host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast, joined Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro on the “Sunday Special” this week to discuss his new <a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Race-Politics-Arguments-Colorblind/dp/0593332458" target="_blank" rel="noopener">book</a>, “The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America.”
Hughes, who has also testified before Congress warning against pursuing racial reparations, told Shapiro that liberals who were largely behind Martin Luther King Jr.’s argument for a colorblind society have “abandoned” that idea to pursue race-based policies.
“The Left’s argument for most of my childhood and most of my teenage years with regard to race was the old MLK argument, which is that you were supposed to see people as individuals without reference primarily to their racial group,” Shapiro said.
“And then it seems like the Left has shifted away from that MLK message and now has embraced much more racial politics as a mechanism for electoral and political success. So when you talk a little bit about [colorblindness], why do you think it is that this has now become more associated with ‘the Right,’ even though it was never historically a Right-wing argument?” the Daily Wire host asked.
“Yeah, my childhood mirrored yours in that sense,” Hughes replied. “I grew up in a liberal town. I think I met one Republican my whole life as a kid, and everyone took for granted that Martin Luther King&#8217;s famous speech and his now cliched phrase, ‘Judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.’ Everyone took that for granted as the obvious way to think about race.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/not-everything-is-about-race-coleman-hughes-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH ‘THE BEN SHAPIRO SHOW SUNDAY SPECIAL’ WITH COLEMAN HUGHES</a>
The author added that Dr. King’s argument that was taken for granted was first abandoned during race riots in the late 1960s and 1970s and then again during the George Floyd riots of 2020.
“There&#8217;s always been a fringe among academics, elite intellectuals. The Critical Race Theory fringe, which since the ‘70s and ‘80s, has said that ‘actually the civil rights movement was wrong. They didn&#8217;t go far enough. And we have to think about race all the time. American society is fundamentally racist.’
Hughes added that “liberals abandoned this idea [colorblindness] during the race riots, very similar to what happened during George Floyd, where you had every politician trying to outdo the other to show how much they cared about racism and implementing race-based policies everywhere from, you know, Microsoft to like a local town ordinance.”

The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special

Coleman Hughes Joins Ben Shapiro To Discuss How Leftists ‘Abandoned’ MLK’s Desire For A Colorblind Society To Push ‘Race-Based Policies Everywhere’

If you&#8217;ve ever worked in some capacity on procuring a federal government contract, then you&#8217;re familiar with maybe the single most obvious and grotesque <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-contracting-is-the-next-dei-target-race-affirmative-action-supreme-court-ca60eaf4?st=567k88x0e9wat4y&amp;reflink=article_gmail_share">form</a> of affirmative action that exists in this country.
It&#8217;s been around for a long time. As far back as Nixon&#8217;s administration, gender and racial affirmative action became mandatory for federal construction projects in the city of Philadelphia. Any federal contractor that hired fewer than 80% of the local share of “any race, sex, or ethnic group” risked losing their contract — and being barred from working with the federal government entirely. Within a year, those requirements applied to contracts with all federal agencies, nationwide.
As an attorney named Michael Toth <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-contracting-is-the-next-dei-target-race-affirmative-action-supreme-court-ca60eaf4?st=567k88x0e9wat4y&amp;reflink=article_gmail_share" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pointed out</a> recently in the Wall Street Journal, those rules are still in place today, half a century later. In fact, they&#8217;ve only expanded in scope. Now the federal government can <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/welcome-to-the-world-of-minority-contracting" target="_blank" rel="noopener">award</a> no-bid contracts to so-called &#8220;minority-owned&#8221; businesses in many cases.
The end result of this policy has been exactly what you&#8217;d expect. For one thing, contractors know that they need to employ a token number of women and minorities in order to get any kind of government grants. Additionally, so-called &#8220;minority-owned&#8221; contractors often get government contracts, and then subcontract them out to contractors who didn&#8217;t meet the diversity quota.
This is all highly inefficient — it&#8217;s fraud, basically — and it&#8217;s resulted in taxpayers being forced to waste a lot of money. As City Journal reported recently, some government projects <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/welcome-to-the-world-of-minority-contracting">cost</a> nearly 20% more than they would have without these affirmative action programs. Multiply that by hundreds of billions of dollars&#8217; worth of federal government contracts every year, and you begin to see the problem.
Instead of ending this social engineering, and simply allowing markets to work without crude demographic manipulation, the Biden administration&#8217;s allies in state and local governments are doubling down. They&#8217;ve decided that they know exactly what the demographic makeup of each industry should be — and it just so happens that white men aren&#8217;t wanted in any industry.
I&#8217;ll start with Maine, where this week, Democrats have determined that the field of construction — where blacks and hispanics make up nearly 40% of the workforce — simply isn&#8217;t diverse enough. Specifically, the governor, Janet Mills, has determined that more women need to be construction workers. And therefore, Mills has signed an executive order that, among other things, will use state and federal funding to prioritize construction projects that involve women. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Maine Women In Construction Industry" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aDwOlgVA03Y?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;We need construction workers, especially women, now.&#8221; Why? Why especially women? This is odd coming from Janet Mills, who spent her college years traveling through Europe and learning French, before going to law school and spending the rest of her life in government. What does Janet Mills know about construction, exactly? How is she qualified to say anything about what the construction industry needs, or who’s most qualified to fill those needs?
As always, this DEI initiative is a solution in search of a problem. There is absolutely no reason to believe and not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the construction industry was in any way suffering due to a lack of female representation. There isn’t one problem in the construction industry that you can point to and say: “You know what will solve that? More women!” That’s because no problems can be solved by involving more females in construction. And on top of that, there is no evidence at all that any qualified female has ever been denied a job in construction due to her sex. By all accounts, fewer women are in construction for two simple reasons: First because most women don&#8217;t want to do construction. And second because men are generally much better at it.
Of course, it&#8217;s completely rational for women to dislike the idea of working in construction. It&#8217;s one of the most <a href="https://x.com/eyeslasho/status/1787885252847013976" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dangerous</a> jobs you can have.
<div id="attachment_734755" style="width: 721px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-734755" class="wp-image-734755 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/05/vvvv-rt-711x576.jpg" alt="Source: bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. AEI." width="711" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/05/vvvv-rt-711x576.jpg 711w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/05/vvvv-rt-300x243.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/05/vvvv-rt-768x622.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/05/vvvv-rt.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 711px) 100vw, 711px" />Source: bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. AEI.</div>
As you can see from this chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it&#8217;s among the top 20 most dangerous jobs, along with roofers, police officers, truck drivers, miners, farmers and ranchers. And you&#8217;ll never guess what all of these top-20 most dangerous jobs in America have in common. They&#8217;re all overwhelmingly done by men. Construction is more than 97% male-dominated, and it has a fatal injury rate of 15 per 100,000 workers. That&#8217;s on par with cement and concrete manufacturing, which is also more than 97% male-dominated.
These jobs can be very dangerous — and in fact would be even more dangerous for women.
That’s not just because women are weaker and more injury prone — though they are. It’s also because a large percentage of the deaths on construction sites are caused at least in part by heat exhaustion. It just so happens that women are more sensitive to temperatures — both hot and cold. Any married man is very familiar with this phenomenon. One minute your wife is complaining that she’s freezing to death, you adjust the thermostat by one degree, and now she insists that the house is a sweltering desert.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1364-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
So that is just one of the reasons why men tend to do most of the physically demanding jobs outside. Men tend to do most of the physically demanding and dangerous jobs everywhere. This is not a privilege that men have but rather a responsibility they carry. The takeaway from this shouldn’t be that we need more women doing these jobs. It&#8217;s that men (and white men in particular, historically) have had a unique and essential role in building and maintaining our civilization. We would not have this civilization without them.
Rather than this constant drumbeat of scolding and lecturing and guilt and resentment — and treating the presence of this group as a problem that must be solved or a cancer that must be treated — the appropriate attitude is one of appreciation and gratitude. Men built every building you’ve ever been in, every bridge you’ve ever crossed, every road you’ve ever driven on. Sure, if you’re a bitter, resentful little brat, maybe that fact will make you feel somehow diminished. But if you’re a smart, mature, decent person, instead of demanding that we kick men out of these industries, you will instead have some gratitude. You will say, “Thank you men. Thank you for everything you’d done for civilization, and for me personally.” That should be our answer to the Janet Mills of the world. Rather than going on the defensive and justifying ourselves, men as a group should say to her: “Hey you ungrateful child. The correct response is thank you. Didn’t your parents teach you manners?”
This same logic applies to race as well. These days, of course, as noted, it’s not just white men in the construction industry. But historically speaking white men have been uniquely indispensable contributors to western civilization. Most modern technology was invented by white men. Most of the great discoveries were made by white men. Most of our wars were fought and won predominately by white men. Most of the advances in medicine and science have been achieved by white men. Most of the great leaders, artists, thinkers, and philosophers in western history have been white men. And yet this is the one group most demonized — most hated for the sin of providing us with so much of what we value. A sane society would be finding ways to get this group more involved in things, given its incredible track record. Instead we go the other way.
Outside of communist countries, modern western societies are the only ones in the history of the world that go out of their way to identify the people most responsible for building and maintaining their societies — only to villainize and alienate those same people.
And we&#8217;re doing it more and more. This isn&#8217;t just happening in the federal government or in Maine. It&#8217;s also happening in the most populated city in the United States. Officials in New York have just proudly announced that they&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-jfk-airport-construction-sets-record-mwbe-participation-23-billion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">awarded</a> more than $2 billion in contracts for the purposes of renovating JFK Airport. And all of that money has gone to so-called &#8220;MWBE&#8217;s,&#8221; which is short for &#8220;Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises.&#8221; 
As the governor&#8217;s <a href="https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-jfk-airport-construction-sets-record-mwbe-participation-23-billion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">press release reads</a>: &#8220;This is the largest participation of MWBE firms on any public-private partnership project in New York State history. &#8230; With today’s announcement JFK surpasses the LaGuardia Airport redevelopment, which set the previous New York State record for MWBE participation.&#8221;
In other words, no one wanted reparations. Even in New York, it wasn&#8217;t a popular idea. So the state government just decided to do it anyway by handing out money on the basis of race and gender. They&#8217;ve chosen airports as their preferred vehicle to launder this money, evidently.
If you watch the New York Port Authority&#8217;s press conference announcing this funding for the JFK renovation, you&#8217;ll see exactly what&#8217;s motivating these officials. It&#8217;s basically an hour of various New York officials, including a sitting member of Congress, celebrating the fact that they excluded white-owned businesses from receiving taxpayer funding. Here&#8217;s how it began:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 JFK Built By Minority" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KC3aJFI4hyc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is the head of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announcing — to applause — that JFK&#8217;s renovation involved as few white men as possible. He&#8217;s not proud of the quality of the renovation. He doesn&#8217;t talk about how the airport is going to be better as a result of this work. Instead, he&#8217;s just happy white people didn&#8217;t have a role in it. Never mind the fact that white people — white men, specifically — have pretty much single handedly built the entire aviation industry, beginning with inventing the airplane. Now we need to get them all out, for some reason.
And then he goes on to explain that the government did everything it could to ensure that non-white people secured the government contracts for JFK, by preparing specialized, segregated &#8220;boot camps&#8221; to help them along in the application process. So he&#8217;s acknowledging that this was not a remotely fair or merit-driven process at any point. It was the purest form of affirmative action. He&#8217;s not celebrating that these minority businesses earned the job; he&#8217;s celebrating that the government rigged the process.
This is illegal, obviously, and it gets worse. Here&#8217;s Congressman Gregory Meeks explaining why it was so important to discriminate against white male contractors:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Must Have Equity DEI" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y4xQ7JQGeTA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The congressman says it&#8217;s important for racial and gender discrimination (in the form of DEI) to be a part of everything New York does, but he doesn&#8217;t really say why. He gets some applause when he says it&#8217;s good for &#8220;business,&#8221; but he doesn&#8217;t elaborate on that point.
That&#8217;s probably because, as I&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imLMG7C6oF4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">outlined</a> before, it&#8217;s demonstrably false that DEI is good for business. The only time DEI is good for business is if you&#8217;re a non-white business and you&#8217;re looking to get a government payout. In that case, DEI is good for business. For everyone else, it&#8217;s a massive economic drain at a minimum. It&#8217;s probably also a safety risk.
Even if racial discrimination were somehow profitable, that still wouldn&#8217;t justify it. And it&#8217;s pretty remarkable that a sitting member of Congress would imply otherwise. Only a deep-seated hatred of white men would explain what we&#8217;re seeing here. As if there was any doubt about that, the next speaker at this press conference — a New York assemblymember named Alicia Hyndman — came right out and admitted that, yes, that&#8217;s what&#8217;s going on. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 Important Zoom Meetings" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JrxnkQi-_sM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
So, the woman can&#8217;t figure out how Zoom works, apparently, but she&#8217;s in charge of renovating the airport because, with apologies to white people, the airport isn&#8217;t for them anymore. It&#8217;s for people who look like Alicia Hyndman now: &#8220;We knew it was for us. For us, by us, to make sure this community that we represent looks like us.&#8221;
To be clear, she&#8217;s talking about an airport. This is a public facility that isn&#8217;t &#8220;for&#8221; or &#8220;by&#8221; any racial group. And Alicia Hyndman is a public official. She supposedly represents a &#8220;community&#8221; that includes white people. But here she is, proudly declaring that the airport is &#8220;for&#8221; black people. And her &#8220;community&#8221; doesn&#8217;t include people who don&#8217;t &#8220;look like&#8221; her.
So white men don&#8217;t get to build airports anymore. The airports aren&#8217;t for them. Neither are construction jobs. You have to wonder what, if anything, these politicians want white men to do. Should they ever receive any funding from the government? Should they be allowed to compete for government contracts on a fair and equal playing field? Should would white men build, maintain, and run their own airport? I’d be quite happy to use that airport, personally. I think most people would be.
Really, though, everyone knows what’s happening here. Her goal, and the goal of her party, isn&#8217;t simply to erase white men from history. Their goal is to erase white men from the workforce, as punishment for doing everything so well, for so long. This isn&#8217;t a secret at this point. As conservatives spend all their time talking about college campuses, their enemies are being very methodical and explicit about what they&#8217;re doing — one airport renovation and construction job at a time.

A hand with a hammer, real worker close up detail image

White Men Deserve Gratitude, Not Demonization

Construction

Equity

Farmers

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Steel workers

Women

Arkansas v Ole Miss

The Left Suddenly Forgets About Gaza And Spends Two Days Outraged Over A Frat Boy’s Joke

The Left Suddenly Forgets About Gaza And Spends Two Days Outraged Over A Frat Boy's Joke

American Universities

Blacks

Fraternity

Mississippi

The following is an edited transcript of a recent interview between Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley and writer, podcast host, and author Coleman Hughes on a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/arguments-for-a-colorblind-america-with-coleman-hughes-5-5-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire</a>. They discuss Coleman’s new book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Race-Politics-Arguments-Colorblind/dp/0593332458/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9._h60-qX0FVqYwEkR4727shgT8ZTliBnE-akfWHgvqRM-GrYX2xXpdDyMeBS7txWqiCrkMs40YZDOJq0H8XhQYnFpof7UfQ576iR67iozqBCKO6S_uwsf1Y_NUYhlYq0PvT1R_AJ3jFj2pKZLBtNVN_Db5KHpDQmXLpTySrfa63P672QGuKZz_0gqqqxK0WSQzJKHz8MFi_kNzmIB8C1sGgAzfFGU3mxOgyyV2l0BZCE.qFFTfmVuiIXitZcyJyxXMn-a3F612ji872fykwxuH14&amp;qid=1714698506&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America</a>” and how his push back on DEI is making waves.
JOHN: Joining us now is Coleman Hughes, podcast host and author of “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Race-Politics-Arguments-Colorblind/dp/0593332458/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9._h60-qX0FVqYwEkR4727shgT8ZTliBnE-akfWHgvqRM-GrYX2xXpdDyMeBS7txWqiCrkMs40YZDOJq0H8XhQYnFpof7UfQ576iR67iozqBCKO6S_uwsf1Y_NUYhlYq0PvT1R_AJ3jFj2pKZLBtNVN_Db5KHpDQmXLpTySrfa63P672QGuKZz_0gqqqxK0WSQzJKHz8MFi_kNzmIB8C1sGgAzfFGU3mxOgyyV2l0BZCE.qFFTfmVuiIXitZcyJyxXMn-a3F612ji872fykwxuH14&amp;qid=1714698506&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America</a>.” Coleman, thanks for coming on. 
COLEMAN: Thanks for having me.
JOHN: So I want to start with <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sunny-hostin-gets-wrecked-after-accusing-independent-author-of-being-co-opted-by-republicans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an interview</a> you did with The View that went viral last month. One of the hosts, Sunny Hostin, branded you a “conservative” and suggested you&#8217;re being used as a pawn by the Right. What do you make of that encounter and the stir it caused – and how would you define your perspective ideologically?
COLEMAN: So, I&#8217;m a political independent, I&#8217;ve only voted twice. I&#8217;m 28-years-old, so that&#8217;s a function of my age. Both times I voted for Democrats – Hillary and Biden, though I&#8217;m not opposed to voting for Republicans. So those are my politics. What I make of that appearance was that Sunny Hostin, rather than address my arguments, she sought to paint me as somehow a compromised individual, either financially compromised or ethically compromised. And instead of attacking her on the same grounds, I just kind of calmly debunked her accusations and then moved back to the topic. I think the contrast between how she was arguing in such bad faith and how I just calmly responded, I think that contrast is what made the moment go semi-viral, because that&#8217;s just something you don&#8217;t see on daytime television. I think people were struck by that.
JOHN: Before we get to your book, I wanted to ask you about something else that’s been in the headlines: the anti-Israel protests we’re seeing at elite universities. You graduated from Columbia, which has been a hub for these protests. Do you see a correlation with the kinds of protests we&#8217;re seeing on campuses and the emphasis on Diversity Equity and Inclusion in academia? Is there a crossover between this Left-wing protest culture and DEI?
COLEMAN: So I think the thing people don&#8217;t understand about DEI and why people criticize DEI is that DEI is an ideology. DEI is the ideology, which says that you can divide the world into oppressors and oppressed. White people are the oppressors, Jews are the oppressors, and the oppressed are black people, brown people, Hispanics, and so forth. DEI departments and DEI bureaucracies are usually clusters of bureaucrats who basically buy into this philosophy. But it&#8217;s the philosophy itself that is the problem and that philosophy is very much synced up with the protests you&#8217;re seeing now on Ivy League campuses where Jews in general are seen as oppressors, as “colonizers,” really. That very much syncs up with the DEI bureaucracies that have generally viewed white people and Jews as oppressors who are not really subject to the same protections as students of “color.”
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/arguments-for-a-colorblind-america-with-coleman-hughes-5-5-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LISTEN: The Morning Wire interview with Coleman Hughes</a></h4>
JOHN: This gets us to the premise for your book, and many of the statements you&#8217;ve made publicly, which is that we need to strive for a colorblind society. First, how do you define color blindness within the context of modern society?
COLEMAN: For me, color blindness isn&#8217;t pretending not to notice race because, as adults at least, we all notice race. But, what colorblindness really should mean, at its deepest level, is that we try our very best to treat people without regard to race, both in our personal lives and in our public policy. So, I tell you I&#8217;m gonna do my best not to treat you differently because of your race. I&#8217;m going to ask that you do the same to me, and we&#8217;re both going to ask that our government does not treat us differently based upon our skin color. And whenever the government has a legitimate interest in trying to help disadvantaged people, we&#8217;d ask that they do that on the basis of class, income, wealth, socio-economic measures, rather than based on the color of my skin or my racial identity. If you&#8217;re for what I just said, you&#8217;re for colorblindness as I define it in my book.
JOHN: You contrast this colorblind ideal to the concept of what you call “neo-racism” and its emergence in contemporary discourse. How do you define neo-racism and how does it differ from traditional forms of racism? 
COLEMAN: So, the philosophy I just described as DEI is fairly close to the philosophy I call neo-racism in the book. It&#8217;s a philosophy that says Whiteness is inherently bad and anything but whiteness is inherently good, inherently morally superior. This is a philosophy that was pretty marginal in American life for many decades. You could find it in Critical Race Theory seminars for many decades, but you&#8217;d never encounter it if you were just a normal person navigating typical spaces. Until about 2013, when we all got smartphones with cameras, and everyone and their mother was on Facebook, that fundamentally changed how information spread. And that caused a scenario where people were now seeing unrepresentative, misleading clips of police firing on unarmed black Americans, preferentially promoted in their social media algorithms, which gave the false impression that racism was on the rise, when in fact, it&#8217;s been on the decline for many, many decades. When that happened, the ground became fertile in people&#8217;s minds for this philosophy of neo-racism, or DEI, to spread way beyond the narrow corners of the academy where it used to live. It then spread into your social media feeds, into your K-12 classrooms, where now you have kids essentially being taught that whiteness is a bad thing and taught to be ashamed of their race. You have black kids and Hispanic kids taught to exaggerate their victimhood and wear it as a kind of badge of pride. All of this has wreaked havoc on race relations. All of it is a backslide from what is the proper goal, namely the goal of the civil rights movement, which is to denounce racism in all its forms, whoever it&#8217;s directed at, and to emphasize our common humanity. The fact that beneath this skin, we are all more alike than we are different. The essential fact about you is not the race or the group that you belong to, it&#8217;s your personal qualities. It&#8217;s how you treat people. It&#8217;s your values and so forth. So, that&#8217;s how I describe it.
JOHN: You bring up the civil rights movement. There&#8217;s an ongoing attempt to co-opt Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In recent years. We&#8217;re being told that his message was far different than most people remember it — that he doesn&#8217;t want people judged by the color of their skin — but that he actually had a different vision, a much more DEI and sort of Marxism-aligned vision. Can you explain that debate and which side you stand on?
COLEMAN: Well, as for Marxism,  it&#8217;s just a historical fact that he rejected Marxism. Anyone can read his essay called “<a href="https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/my-pilgrimage-nonviolence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">My Pilgrimage to Nonviolence</a>” where he explicitly talks about why he rejected Marxism. But on this larger question of what did Dr. King believe? Every year on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, there&#8217;s a series of articles in the Huffington Post and various liberal outlets, Left-leaning outlets, – and they&#8217;re all the same article, they all say the same thing. They say Dr. Martin Luther King was a radical and they imply that he would kind of agree with woke anti-racists like Ibram X. Kendi, Ta Nehisi Coates, the Black Lives Matter movement, and so forth. But they all do the same thing, which is they lie by doing a bait and switch. They say Martin Luther King was a radical, and then the only quotes and arguments they can pull from to prove that have nothing to do with race. They have to do with other topics, like, for instance, MLK was against the Vietnam War before that was a popular position. So he was considered an anti-war radical, he was a pacifist, which was very controversial at the time, in the mid-60s. And he was also for things like universal health care and a guaranteed minimum wage, what you would call today kind of Democratic Socialism of a Bernie Sanders variety. Again, that was very controversial then too. None of those ideas, however, have anything to do with the issues he is alleged to have been a radical on – namely, racial identity, the importance of race. He never wavered on that issue. He always felt that the important thing was common humanity, not to divide black from white, not to judge people based on the color of their skin, but rather on the content of their character and steadfastly against policies that discriminated in any direction on the basis of race. No one&#8217;s ever been able to show that he supported those things because he didn&#8217;t, and he was very clear about that. So you have many scholars on the Left saying that the Right are the people that have sanitized and co-opted Dr. King&#8217;s legacy. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth. It&#8217;s the so-called “anti-racists” that have had to ignore half of what Dr. King said in order to make it seem like he would agree with what they&#8217;re doing today, which he wouldn&#8217;t.
JOHN: What do you see as the main drawbacks of anti-racism or neo-racism, particularly in its effects on social progress and its impact on black individuals?
COLEMAN: One of the negative effects it&#8217;s had on black people is to persuade us that current discrimination is the main cause of black standing relative to white Americans. It&#8217;s made a kind of toxic victimhood mentality the norm – where I really don&#8217;t think that that kind of a mindset, which blames white supremacy for everything, is useful. First of all, it&#8217;s not true. And so it&#8217;s a misdiagnosis of the problems that still do pervade, especially intergenerationally poor pockets of black America. The problem in those places is not white supremacy, but neo-racism has so convinced enough people that white supremacy is the problem, that all the efforts have been directed essentially at the sort of anti-racist, DEI programs that do nothing to address the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem with intergenerational poverty, both black, white, Hispanic, and so forth, is that we have to do a much better job helping people between the ages of 0 and 18, at the pre-K age, and at the K-12 level. Things like race-based affirmative action at the college level, corporate DEI programs, they don&#8217;t even touch the source of the issue. And yet those have been the focus because neo-racism has misdiagnosed the problem.
JOHN: What are some of the policies or approaches or even philosophies that would be helpful for addressing those ages 0 to 18?
COLEMAN: I think the most important study that I know of that points the direction of where we ought to go is by the economist Roland Fryer at Harvard. He did a study where he was able to essentially take over 11 or 12 of the lowest performing public schools in Houston. He fired half the teachers, fired almost all the principals, and extended the school day. He looked at how the best Charter Schools in New York City operated and he imported those protocols into the public schools. And he was able to raise test scores, all kinds of good results, which are extremely rare to see in public school research. I think that kind of thing is really the direction we have to be moving toward. Unfortunately, in any normal scenario, all of his interventions are impossible due to unions and so forth. I think that&#8217;s really the direction we have to go in.
JOHN: What role do elite American institutions play in perpetuating racism? You have a lot of experience in them, so do I. How can they be transformed into allies in the fight against these issues, this neo-racism?
COLEMAN: Well, unfortunately, elite institutions are the places where neo-racism has taken its firmest and deepest root. So, I&#8217;m talking about elite universities, Ivy League universities, corporations, museums, all these kinds of elite spaces – journalism and media, where it has become normal  to essentially judge people based on the color of their skin. It has become unacceptable to question someone&#8217;s allegation of racism. And so it, it&#8217;s become very normal for there to be false examples of racism. It&#8217;s become difficult to speak or disagree about topics related to race for fear of one&#8217;s career, fear of getting fired, fear of getting canceled. And there has to be a critical mass of people in these institutions who say, “enough.”
JOHN: Are there alternatives now? Or do you see them in the works — these institutions or education models that are providing some hope in terms of really addressing the issues that will actually elevate people who are in poverty status?.
COLEMAN: So, at the K-12 level, you&#8217;ve seen certain charter schools that are extremely successful with precisely the kids that the system has generally given up on. Not to say all charter schools are successful, some are terrible, but the ones that are good are really good and they are better than public schools at dealing with kids that come from disadvantaged backgrounds, single parent homes, and so forth. Someone like Ian Rowe is a great resource on that issue, he runs charter schools in New York. At the college level, you have the University of Austin in Texas, which has tried to pioneer a different approach, a less ideological approach, or rather a classical liberal approach, really. An approach that values free speech and viewpoint diversity, which at this point, most of the elite colleges and universities have abandoned as an ideal – choosing instead social justice, anti-racism, anti-colonialism as their highest ideals. And, yeah, so I think those two educational models at the K through 12 level and at the college level point a direction forward. In terms of media, I write for the Free Press, which Barry Weiss started as an alternative media source, giving people really rigorous journalism, long-form journalism, investigative journalism, the stuff you can only do if you&#8217;re like a legitimate, resourced, journalism outlet – but without the woke bias, without the liberal slant that has been endemic in most journalistic institutions.
JOHN: Well, we’re certainly sympathetic to that view here – trying to provide an alternative to this liberal slant in the media is part of the reason we created this show. Coleman, thank you so much for joining us today.
COLEMAN: Thanks so much.
JOHN: That was Coleman Hughes, author of “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Race-Politics-Arguments-Colorblind/dp/0593332458/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9._h60-qX0FVqYwEkR4727shgT8ZTliBnE-akfWHgvqRM-GrYX2xXpdDyMeBS7txWqiCrkMs40YZDOJq0H8XhQYnFpof7UfQ576iR67iozqBCKO6S_uwsf1Y_NUYhlYq0PvT1R_AJ3jFj2pKZLBtNVN_Db5KHpDQmXLpTySrfa63P672QGuKZz_0gqqqxK0WSQzJKHz8MFi_kNzmIB8C1sGgAzfFGU3mxOgyyV2l0BZCE.qFFTfmVuiIXitZcyJyxXMn-a3F612ji872fykwxuH14&amp;qid=1714698506&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America</a>” – and this has been a Sunday // Extra edition of Morning Wire.
***

Menu